Obama's malicious and destructive decree on the Keystone pipeline is coming in for some of the contempt it deserves -- because it's so patently idiotic. U.S. Representative Michael Burgess says, “Canada likes us. Let us get our energy from Canada.” Robert J. Samuelson said, “President Obama’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is an act of national insanity.”

Wee need the oil. Canada has the oil, and they want to sell it to us.We need jobs, and the pipeline will create jobs.We need to pay less money to Arabs, and the Canadian oil will help us do that.

So why is Obama cutting off our own nose to spite our face? Is it just sheer malice, an "up yours" to spite the whole country? Is it anti-capitalist, anti-industrial bigotry, the disease of infantile leftists? Is it the environmentalist “global warming” mass delusion? 

On his radio show last night, Mark Levin said that President Barack Obama has caused a “constitutional crisis” by appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board . . . without going through the constitutionally required Senate confirmation process.

“We have a constitutional crisis," Levin said. "It is in fact a constitutional crisis."

"The President of the United States is trashing the Constitution now day in and day out,” Levin said.

Anyone could have seen this coming. Obama has total contempt for this country, its traditions, its laws, its allies. Everything he says is calculated and manipulative, solely designed to get his way. He thinks he's God's gift to humanity, and his whole idea of government is bashing people (and races, and countries) he doesn't like, and rewarding his cronies and homies. He's a snot-nosed, conceited little Mussolini for Morons -- because only half-wits and morons would ever have bought his line of jive.

[The] extremist Tea Party agenda won a clear victory. . . No matter who the Republicans nominate, we'll be running against someone who has embraced that agenda in order to win -- vowing to let Wall Street write its own rules, end Medicare as we know it, roll back gay rights, leave the troops in Iraq indefinitely, restrict a woman's right to choose, and gut Social Security to pay for more tax cuts for millionaires and corporations.

I've got a great idea. Since China's manufacturing is slowing down, why don't we ask them if we can have our factories back?

Seriously. All the wise-guy pundits and pseudo-experts who keep diagnosing our problems and emitting solemn pronouncements, refuse to face one fact: We simply have to have our manufacturing sector back again. We can't allow other, low-wage countries to produce the preponderance of our goods, while we only consume.

We produce little, we consume much, and the difference we finance by going into debt up to our eyeballs. That's madness. 

In addition, the "arsenal of democracy" which used to be our manufacturing capacity, is now the arsenal of Red China. And the people in charge of our country, who look at that situation with complete insouciance, must be stark raving mad.

All the half-witted retards who keep prattling about Smoot-Hawley and "protectionism" and such-like crap, are living in the prehistoric past. They don't have any solution for the debacle we're headed straight into. They just keep patting themselves on the back because they're so righteous and would never interfere with free trade or the flood of goods from low-wage countries. But they have no clue on how to keep us from going over a cliff. They're just basking in their economic holiness -- which is not a sound economic policy.

This is a massive betrayal by our economic "intellectuals" -- a trahison des twerps. Après all the half-witted pundits, le déluge!

A group. . .  made a makeshift camp in Trafalgar Square. Anti-capitalist ‘occupy’ activists put up 20 tents at the foot of Nelson’s Column.

They said they were planning to stay for as ‘long as possible’ and chanted ‘Whose square? Our square.’

What was meant to be a joke resulted in a major insult. Barack Obama tried to be funny at the G20 this week but nobody laughed.

Obama told his global audience,    “I want to make mention that this is our first meeting since the arrival of the newest Sarkozy, and so I want to congratulate Nicolas and Carla on the birth of Giulia... And I informed Nicolas on the way in that I am confident that Giulia inherited her mother’s looks rather than her father’s, which I think is an excellent thing.”

Nobody laughed.

Smoking-Gun Document Ties Policy To Housing Crisis  
    by Paul Sperry, Investor's Business Daily,  Oct. 31, 2011

[In 1994] the federal government declared war on an enemy - the racist lender - who officials claimed was to blame for differences in home ownership rate, and launched what would prove the costliest social crusade in U.S. history.

At President Clinton's direction, no fewer than 10 federal agencies issued a chilling ultimatum to banks and mortgage lenders: to ease credit for lower-income minorities or face investigations for lending discrimination They also were threatened with denial of access to the all-important secondary mortgage market and stiff fines, along with other penalties....

[T]he ruling would be used by the agencies as a fair-lending enforcement "tool," and would apply to "all lenders" -- including banks and thrifts, credit unions, mortgage brokers and finance companies....

The study did not take into account a host of other relevant data factoring into denials, including applicants' net worth, debt burden and employment record. Other variables, such as the size of down payments and the amount of the loans sought to the value of the property being bought, also were left out of the analysis. It also failed to consider whether the borrower submitted information that could not be verified, the presence of a cosigner and even the loan amount.

 When these missing data were factored in, it became clear that the rejection rates were based on legitimate business decisions, not racism.

(That is, they stacked the deck against the lenders, i.e., against white people whom they wanted to convict of racism, in order to justify the favoritism they wanted to institutionalize.)

Still, the study was used to support a wholesale abandonment of traditional underwriting standards - the root cause of the mortgage crisis.

For the first time, Washington's bank regulators put racial lending at the top of their checklist. Banks that failed to throw open their lending windows to credit-poor minorities were denied expansion plans by the Fed in an era of frenzied financial mergers and acquisitions. HUD threatened to deny them access to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which it controlled. And the Justice Department sued them for lending discrimination and branded them as racists in the press.

The government really put on a full-court press to get lenders to give mortgages to blacks -- any blacks. The arm-twisting was severe, and no lender could stand up to it. All they could do was hedge their bets by inventing mortgage-based "financial instruments" to try to sell off some of their risk and exposure.

In other words, they knew they were making loans to black deadbeats; so if they aggregated those "sub-prime" or sub-standard loans -- if the  piled them higher and deeper -- maybe the stinking pile would look attractive to some other investor, also known as the "greater fool" (i.e., the bigger sap than yourself, whom you sell something to).

But who made them issue those stinking piles of loans in the first place? Our benevolent Uncle Sam.

The whole process fits precisely the definition of affirmative action, which is: giving things to minorities that other people have to qualify for, or earn, by meeting objective standards and relevant qualifications. The rules, the qualifications, the standards have to be suspended for blacks -- so our own government tells us. And that's so, even if affirmative action crashes the whole economy.

The sub-prime crisis was caused by mandated affirmative action in lending. It's sacrificialism: we are supposed to sacrifice our whole country for the sake of racial politics.